Of the 22 777-300ERs in Aeroflot's fleet, three seem to be parked or going through maintenance.
RA73140, serial number 41679 assembled in 2012
RA73139, serial number 41680 assembled in 2013
RA73134, serial number 41689 assembled in 2014 flew last on August 15.
The 777s have become a critical airplane to fly between Moscow and Russia's far east. I wonder if the cargo holds are more important than the seats.

incitatus wrote:

Of the 22 777-300ERs in Aeroflot's fleet, three seem to be parked or going through maintenance.
RA73140, serial number 41679 assembled in 2012
RA73139, serial number 41680 assembled in 2013
RA73134, serial number 41689 assembled in 2014 flew last on August 15.
The 777s have become a critical airplane to fly between Moscow and Russia's far east. I wonder if the cargo holds are more important than the seats.

What important and urgent cargo could there be between the already underdeveloped Russian Far East and Moscow, that cannot be sent by rail? It's not a rhetorical question, but I'm rather genuinely interested to know.

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

toobz wrote:

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

Only really the mandated updates/fixes etc are relevant.
Some airlines decide not to do 'nice to have' updates (e.g. reliability fixes).
So if nothing safety critical has come out recently, I don't see any reason why they are any different to ones flying elsewhere for the moment.
Disclaimer: If the appropriate maintenance program is being performed.

toobz wrote:

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

Russian aviation forums had some sliding schedules published, when and what for which aircraft batch becomes illegal. I'm lazy to search for specific threads, and many of them no longer exist -- moderators work overtime to pluck too interesting topics out themselves, before censorship shows up and shuts down the whole discussion platform for good -- or helps it change ownership into more cooperating hands.

So, from memory, basically, for Airbus (only widebodies? or all? not so sure), the first critical step (or misstep) is a software update and/or patch that comes sometime in August-September.
(more knowledgeable people could chime in on exact schedules).
From that moment on, the rabbit hole starts to become deeper for the question "legal airworthiness of these aircraft".

There are similar dates for other types, of course. Experts here would know these critical points, where stolen goods start to become notably divergent from legit goods.

ReverseFlow wrote:

toobz wrote:

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

Only really the mandated updates/fixes etc are relevant.
Some airlines decide not to do 'nice to have' updates (e.g. reliability fixes).
So if nothing safety critical has come out recently, I don't see any reason why they are any different to ones flying elsewhere for the moment.
Disclaimer: If the appropriate maintenance program is being performed.

If spare parts are not available or counterfeit, and mechanics certification is no longer current, it's less mundane. As they like to say in Russia, "suddenly the evening isn't as languid anymore".

MalevTU134 wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Of the 22 777-300ERs in Aeroflot's fleet, three seem to be parked or going through maintenance.
RA73140, serial number 41679 assembled in 2012
RA73139, serial number 41680 assembled in 2013
RA73134, serial number 41689 assembled in 2014 flew last on August 15.
The 777s have become a critical airplane to fly between Moscow and Russia's far east. I wonder if the cargo holds are more important than the seats.

What important and urgent cargo could there be between the already underdeveloped Russian Far East and Moscow, that cannot be sent by rail? It's not a rhetorical question, but I'm rather genuinely interested to know.

Perishable food/consumer goods that can't last the 7+days a train trip takes? Just guessing...

Phosphorus wrote:

toobz wrote:

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

Russian aviation forums had some sliding schedules published, when and what for which aircraft batch becomes illegal. I'm lazy to search for specific threads, and many of them no longer exist -- moderators work overtime to pluck too interesting topics out themselves, before censorship shows up and shuts down the whole discussion platform for good -- or helps it change ownership into more cooperating hands.

So, from memory, basically, for Airbus (only widebodies? or all? not so sure), the first critical step (or misstep) is a software update and/or patch that comes sometime in August-September.
(more knowledgeable people could chime in on exact schedules).
From that moment on, the rabbit hole starts to become deeper for the question "legal airworthiness of these aircraft".

There are similar dates for other types, of course. Experts here would know these critical points, where stolen goods start to become notably divergent from legit goods.

ReverseFlow wrote:

toobz wrote:

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

Only really the mandated updates/fixes etc are relevant.
Some airlines decide not to do 'nice to have' updates (e.g. reliability fixes).
So if nothing safety critical has come out recently, I don't see any reason why they are any different to ones flying elsewhere for the moment.
Disclaimer: If the appropriate maintenance program is being performed.

If spare parts are not available or counterfeit, and mechanics certification is no longer current, it's less mundane. As they like to say in Russia, "suddenly the evening isn't as languid anymore".

I would have thought that a mechanics license would be under the local regulator?

dcajet wrote:

Perishable food/consumer goods that can't last the 7+days a train trip takes? Just guessing...

You are probably right, but I thought ‘all russians had their own vegetable patch’ so why bother flying food in from other parts of the country or world?

RJWNL wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Perishable food/consumer goods that can't last the 7+days a train trip takes? Just guessing...

You are probably right, but I thought ‘all russians had their own vegetable patch’ so why bother flying food in from other parts of the country or world?

Stereotypes of babushkas pickling anything they can grow during the summer at their dachas...

I really don't know how Russia's supply chains work... Having been at a few large supermarkets in Moscow it does not look like present day Muscovites depend on their dachas for feeding themselves. No different from what it looks like in any modern European city. The variety and quantity of food available is evident and comparable to Western Europe. In this regard, this is no longer the USSR.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

toobz wrote:

I seriously wonder how safe these western aircraft are that are currently flying. Aren’t there quite a few updates that have to be done to the systems of these aircraft? How are they managing this?

Russian aviation forums had some sliding schedules published, when and what for which aircraft batch becomes illegal. I'm lazy to search for specific threads, and many of them no longer exist -- moderators work overtime to pluck too interesting topics out themselves, before censorship shows up and shuts down the whole discussion platform for good -- or helps it change ownership into more cooperating hands.

So, from memory, basically, for Airbus (only widebodies? or all? not so sure), the first critical step (or misstep) is a software update and/or patch that comes sometime in August-September.
(more knowledgeable people could chime in on exact schedules).
From that moment on, the rabbit hole starts to become deeper for the question "legal airworthiness of these aircraft".

There are similar dates for other types, of course. Experts here would know these critical points, where stolen goods start to become notably divergent from legit goods.

ReverseFlow wrote:

Only really the mandated updates/fixes etc are relevant.
Some airlines decide not to do 'nice to have' updates (e.g. reliability fixes).
So if nothing safety critical has come out recently, I don't see any reason why they are any different to ones flying elsewhere for the moment.
Disclaimer: If the appropriate maintenance program is being performed.

If spare parts are not available or counterfeit, and mechanics certification is no longer current, it's less mundane. As they like to say in Russia, "suddenly the evening isn't as languid anymore".

I would have thought that a mechanics license would be under the local regulator?

Russia has made a few very specific modifications to their aviation code, that make things... interesting. If you put your a Boeing or an Airbus on Russian register, you indeed can service them with locally licensed mechanics, under russian rules. If you want to sell it on the world market afterwards, you'll realize that your maintenance regimen was diverging from what the rest of the world does. So you need a bridging check to make it legit in the rest of the world. Apparently, the whole song and dance was expensive enough, that the basic idea was -- for an imported plane, being put on russian registry is a one-way ticket.

On the other hand, if your plane is on Bermuda or Irish registry (like it was before February 24), you'll need your mechanics to have licenses recognized by Bermuda or Ireland. That means separate licenses.

Now, none of that works. Your mechanics' foreign licenses were pulled, your planes are on Russian registry, but in reality they were not de-registered by the owners, parts are sanctioned.

dcajet wrote:

RJWNL wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Perishable food/consumer goods that can't last the 7+days a train trip takes? Just guessing...

You are probably right, but I thought ‘all russians had their own vegetable patch’ so why bother flying food in from other parts of the country or world?

Stereotypes of babushkas pickling anything they can grow during the summer at their dachas...

I really don't know how Russia's supply chains work... Having been at a few large supermarkets in Moscow it does not look like present day Muscovites depend on their dachas for feeding themselves. No different from what it looks like in any modern European city. The variety and quantity of food available is evident and comparable to Western Europe. In this regard, this is no longer the USSR.

Specifically Moscow is seemingly unable to really do too much of that "vegetable patch" sort of thing, anymore. Together with suburbs, it's what? 20 million people minimum? Every "dacha"/vegetable patch that's within 100 km from the city core is too expensive as a real estate for sale, and is a candidate to be converted into a McMansion as a minimum, or 30-storey apartment block possibly. So it's external food supplies, most of the time. Considering logistical bottlenecks for road transport (including imported stuff), short shelf-life stuff would legitimately be flown in.

Phosphorus wrote:

dcajet wrote:

RJWNL wrote:

You are probably right, but I thought ‘all russians had their own vegetable patch’ so why bother flying food in from other parts of the country or world?

Stereotypes of babushkas pickling anything they can grow during the summer at their dachas...

I really don't know how Russia's supply chains work... Having been at a few large supermarkets in Moscow it does not look like present day Muscovites depend on their dachas for feeding themselves. No different from what it looks like in any modern European city. The variety and quantity of food available is evident and comparable to Western Europe. In this regard, this is no longer the USSR.

Specifically Moscow is seemingly unable to really do too much of that "vegetable patch" sort of thing, anymore. Together with suburbs, it's what? 20 million people minimum? Every "dacha"/vegetable patch that's within 100 km from the city core is too expensive as a real estate for sale, and is a candidate to be converted into a McMansion as a minimum, or 30-storey apartment block possibly. So it's external food supplies, most of the time. Considering logistical bottlenecks for road transport (including imported stuff), short shelf-life stuff would legitimately be flown in.

The previous round of sanctions and counter-sanctions imposed by Russia following the Crimea invasion, suddenly left wealthy Muscovites and local 5 * chefs and foodies without access to French and Italian delicacies such as fine cheeses. Interestingly, local entrepreneurs partnered with local chefs and were able to spawn the local manufacturing of some of these goods, with a reasonable amount of success. Not sure this can be replicated this time around.

dcajet wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Stereotypes of babushkas pickling anything they can grow during the summer at their dachas...

I really don't know how Russia's supply chains work... Having been at a few large supermarkets in Moscow it does not look like present day Muscovites depend on their dachas for feeding themselves. No different from what it looks like in any modern European city. The variety and quantity of food available is evident and comparable to Western Europe. In this regard, this is no longer the USSR.

Specifically Moscow is seemingly unable to really do too much of that "vegetable patch" sort of thing, anymore. Together with suburbs, it's what? 20 million people minimum? Every "dacha"/vegetable patch that's within 100 km from the city core is too expensive as a real estate for sale, and is a candidate to be converted into a McMansion as a minimum, or 30-storey apartment block possibly. So it's external food supplies, most of the time. Considering logistical bottlenecks for road transport (including imported stuff), short shelf-life stuff would legitimately be flown in.

The previous round of sanctions and counter-sanctions imposed by Russia following the Crimea invasion, suddenly left wealthy Muscovites and local 5 * chefs and foodies without access to French and Italian delicacies such as fine cheeses. Interestingly, local entrepreneurs partnered with local chefs and were able to spawn the local manufacturing of some of these goods, with a reasonable amount of success. Not sure this can be replicated this time around.

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation. I guess they can live without the latest updates of their western equipment (and of course French cheese). Flying will be less safe at least up to the time when indigenous models have replaced their present fleet. I personalty think terror attacks will be much more of a problem then the maintenance. Especially as there is no real control where all those shoulder mounted SAMs being sold off on the Ukrainian black market. It will also potentially be a big issue for all the world wide (including military) aviation.

dcajet wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Stereotypes of babushkas pickling anything they can grow during the summer at their dachas...

I really don't know how Russia's supply chains work... Having been at a few large supermarkets in Moscow it does not look like present day Muscovites depend on their dachas for feeding themselves. No different from what it looks like in any modern European city. The variety and quantity of food available is evident and comparable to Western Europe. In this regard, this is no longer the USSR.

Specifically Moscow is seemingly unable to really do too much of that "vegetable patch" sort of thing, anymore. Together with suburbs, it's what? 20 million people minimum? Every "dacha"/vegetable patch that's within 100 km from the city core is too expensive as a real estate for sale, and is a candidate to be converted into a McMansion as a minimum, or 30-storey apartment block possibly. So it's external food supplies, most of the time. Considering logistical bottlenecks for road transport (including imported stuff), short shelf-life stuff would legitimately be flown in.

The previous round of sanctions and counter-sanctions imposed by Russia following the Crimea invasion, suddenly left wealthy Muscovites and local 5 * chefs and foodies without access to French and Italian delicacies such as fine cheeses. Interestingly, local entrepreneurs partnered with local chefs and were able to spawn the local manufacturing of some of these goods, with a reasonable amount of success. Not sure this can be replicated this time around.

There was an underground system to supply some stuff.
There was a full spectrum of solutions -- from mass-market to fairly exclusive things.
An example of mass-market solutions -- "Belarus shrimp" is probably most prominent. To make long story short, for the last 8 years, Belarus (a landlocked country) was, according to both customs statistics, and supermarket label observations, a prominent supplier of shrimp to Russia. Repackaging and relabeling was the name of the game.
At the very top of the market, I wouldn't be surprised to hear of fresh oysters, flown in by a business jet, to an eager owner.

Long story short. "Proper people" had access to stuff all these years. There was a cost, and their flunkies had to run extra errands, maybe grease some palms from time to time. Maybe even "proper people" had to make a call, from time to time, calling in a favor from yesteryear, so that jet's cargo would not be noticed.

For middle classes, must have been less obvious. Flying in stuff in checked luggage, doing shopping trips to Finland, Estonia and Latvia, must have been the name of the game for some.
At industrial level, sales to Kazakhstan with re-export to russia were a thing too.

Even where there IS railway, you would hardly get things from Moscow to Khabarovsk and Vladivostok faster than within 6 days. it's a 9000 km ride on an overloaded (at least previously) and not very fast railway line. But that is at least reachable by train. Now, see where Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky is located. It gets 3*77W daily. Check Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. ferry, slow and inefficient. And essentially nothing edible grows in Sakhalin. Hence, 3*77W daily. Vladivostok 4*77W daily. And there are other far eastern destinations, too. In short, these 77Ws are being run into the ground as these major airports serve as distribution points for minor airports. essentially none of which is reachable by train. the infrastructure has been lagging for 100+ years. and it is STILL hopelessly lagging. therefore, 77W/359 until the last frame alive...

Don't think they need Boeings and Airbuses to do long haul freight. They got probably hundreds of IL-76's flying and hundreds parked (look at just about any Russian airport on google maps). I'm sure they can keep those things flying forever. Might not get there non stop but pretty quick.
I hope Russians see the light and stop putin, but look at how donny brainwashed his followers in a free country. Things are gonna have to get pretty bad befoe the Russian people stand up to putin

Sachmet wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Specifically Moscow is seemingly unable to really do too much of that "vegetable patch" sort of thing, anymore. Together with suburbs, it's what? 20 million people minimum? Every "dacha"/vegetable patch that's within 100 km from the city core is too expensive as a real estate for sale, and is a candidate to be converted into a McMansion as a minimum, or 30-storey apartment block possibly. So it's external food supplies, most of the time. Considering logistical bottlenecks for road transport (including imported stuff), short shelf-life stuff would legitimately be flown in.

The previous round of sanctions and counter-sanctions imposed by Russia following the Crimea invasion, suddenly left wealthy Muscovites and local 5 * chefs and foodies without access to French and Italian delicacies such as fine cheeses. Interestingly, local entrepreneurs partnered with local chefs and were able to spawn the local manufacturing of some of these goods, with a reasonable amount of success. Not sure this can be replicated this time around.

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation. I guess they can live without the latest updates of their western equipment (and of course French cheese). Flying will be less safe at least up to the time when indigenous models have replaced their present fleet. I personalty think terror attacks will be much more of a problem then the maintenance. Especially as there is no real control where all those shoulder mounted SAMs being sold off on the Ukrainian black market. It will also potentially be a big issue for all the world wide (including military) aviation.

IMHO that will entirely depend on the winner of this war. If Ukraine wins I expect a very rigid control imposed by the providers of said weapons and it will be very hard to get anything out of Ukraine unnoticed. On the other hand, if the russians win, the stuff could go anywhere. I mean they will confiscate 1000 but write 500 in the report, while the other 500 never existed, but General Orumov is now driving a Merc and has a yacht.

Sachmet wrote:

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation.

There's an important difference, though. In WWII the USSR was attacked by a regime whose goal was literal racial extermination. Here, Putin instigated a war of choice for... unclear reasons. I can't purport to know the Russian state of mind right now, but if Putin's Ukrainian adventurism blows up in his face, the result isn't Moscow being turned into an ornamental lake or every Russian speaker west of the Urals starving to death - failure conditions which may have affected the level of deprivation the USSR's citizens were willing to face to defeat Germany.

Newark727 wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation.

There's an important difference, though. In WWII the USSR was attacked by a regime whose goal was literal racial extermination. Here, Putin instigated a war of choice for... unclear reasons. I can't purport to know the Russian state of mind right now, but if Putin's Ukrainian adventurism blows up in his face, the result isn't Moscow being turned into an ornamental lake or every Russian speaker west of the Urals starving to death - failure conditions which may have affected the level of deprivation the USSR's citizens were willing to face to defeat Germany.

We do know his reasons. His mini-Goebbelses have given plenty of clues on their reasons and their intentions
https://ukrainianpost.com/opinions/272- ... th-ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Russ ... th_Ukraine

is one of these genocide manifestos.
Some writers upthread are mentioning extremism. My suggestions are actually uncomfortably mild, considering the genocidal monster into which putinism has shaped russia (mind you, the seeds fell on fertile ground. Propaganda was hard a at work but russia carries this disease for a long time.)

Newark727 wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation.

There's an important difference, though. In WWII the USSR was attacked by a regime whose goal was literal racial extermination. Here, Putin instigated a war of choice for... unclear reasons. I can't purport to know the Russian state of mind right now, but if Putin's Ukrainian adventurism blows up in his face, the result isn't Moscow being turned into an ornamental lake or every Russian speaker west of the Urals starving to death - failure conditions which may have affected the level of deprivation the USSR's citizens were willing to face to defeat Germany.

You mean the difference that Russia (SU) invaded Poland, Finland and Stalin was a murderous dictator?

In any case Russian are known to be resilient. Also there is war propaganda on all sides - it means the situation present itself different for the ones living in Russia because they don't watch CNN or read the NYT. If true or not but they see the invasion as a pre-emptive strike against a invasion from the West. To them the situation feels similar to WWII.

Sachmet wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation.

There's an important difference, though. In WWII the USSR was attacked by a regime whose goal was literal racial extermination. Here, Putin instigated a war of choice for... unclear reasons. I can't purport to know the Russian state of mind right now, but if Putin's Ukrainian adventurism blows up in his face, the result isn't Moscow being turned into an ornamental lake or every Russian speaker west of the Urals starving to death - failure conditions which may have affected the level of deprivation the USSR's citizens were willing to face to defeat Germany.

You mean the difference that Russia (SU) invaded Poland, Finland and Stalin was a murderous dictator?

In any case Russian are known to be resilient. Also there is war propaganda on all sides - it means the situation present itself different for the ones living in Russia because they don't watch CNN or read the NYT. If true or not but they see the invasion as a pre-emptive strike against a invasion from the West. To them the situation feels similar to WWII.

It's not only internal folks. Plenty of "fellow travelers" and "useful idiots" (Lenin's words, not mine) around the world too:
https://ukrainecouncil.quora.com/Russia ... ne-war-cri

Phosphorus wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

There's an important difference, though. In WWII the USSR was attacked by a regime whose goal was literal racial extermination. Here, Putin instigated a war of choice for... unclear reasons. I can't purport to know the Russian state of mind right now, but if Putin's Ukrainian adventurism blows up in his face, the result isn't Moscow being turned into an ornamental lake or every Russian speaker west of the Urals starving to death - failure conditions which may have affected the level of deprivation the USSR's citizens were willing to face to defeat Germany.

You mean the difference that Russia (SU) invaded Poland, Finland and Stalin was a murderous dictator?

In any case Russian are known to be resilient. Also there is war propaganda on all sides - it means the situation present itself different for the ones living in Russia because they don't watch CNN or read the NYT. If true or not but they see the invasion as a pre-emptive strike against a invasion from the West. To them the situation feels similar to WWII.

It's not only internal folks. Plenty of "fellow travelers" and "useful idiots" (Lenin's words, not mine) around the world too:
https://ukrainecouncil.quora.com/Russia ... ne-war-cri

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

For me this all presents itself as half hearted measures without a proper plan. Those "sanctions from hell" have until now increased Russians income from exports while reducing or re-routing the the output. It also is pushing China, Iran and Russia into a strategic alliance (aviation included).

Sachmet wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

You mean the difference that Russia (SU) invaded Poland, Finland and Stalin was a murderous dictator?

In any case Russian are known to be resilient. Also there is war propaganda on all sides - it means the situation present itself different for the ones living in Russia because they don't watch CNN or read the NYT. If true or not but they see the invasion as a pre-emptive strike against a invasion from the West. To them the situation feels similar to WWII.

It's not only internal folks. Plenty of "fellow travelers" and "useful idiots" (Lenin's words, not mine) around the world too:
https://ukrainecouncil.quora.com/Russia ... ne-war-cri

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

For me this all presents itself as half hearted measures without a proper plan. Those "sanctions from hell" have until now increased Russians income from exports while reducing or re-routing the the output. It also is pushing China, Iran and Russia into a strategic alliance (aviation included).

Correct. "Oil for food" is a proper blueprint.
Except, as russia has enough food, the list of permissible imports should include Bentley's, Prada's, Montblanc, other luxuries, and essential expensive medicines (cancer treatments, Mucopolysaccharidosis treatments, that sort of thing). it's humane and makes a split between ruling elite and the plebs more obvious.

Sachmet wrote:

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

For me this all presents itself as half hearted measures without a proper plan. Those "sanctions from hell" have until now increased Russians income from exports while reducing or re-routing the the output. It also is pushing China, Iran and Russia into a strategic alliance (aviation included).

I agree with you entirely, including earlier posts. Everyone is fully aware that sanctions only, and ever have, hit innocent people of a country......never the leadership who actually caused them.

Sachmet wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

You mean the difference that Russia (SU) invaded Poland, Finland and Stalin was a murderous dictator?

In any case Russian are known to be resilient. Also there is war propaganda on all sides - it means the situation present itself different for the ones living in Russia because they don't watch CNN or read the NYT. If true or not but they see the invasion as a pre-emptive strike against a invasion from the West. To them the situation feels similar to WWII.

It's not only internal folks. Plenty of "fellow travelers" and "useful idiots" (Lenin's words, not mine) around the world too:
https://ukrainecouncil.quora.com/Russia ... ne-war-cri

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

For me this all presents itself as half hearted measures without a proper plan. Those "sanctions from hell" have until now increased Russians income from exports while reducing or re-routing the the output. It also is pushing China, Iran and Russia into a strategic alliance (aviation included).

Apart from (as I understand it) the CRAIC C929 joint-venture has been stopped with Russia.

It was always said that the sanctions need some time to be effective. Time will tell.

Vicenza wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

For me this all presents itself as half hearted measures without a proper plan. Those "sanctions from hell" have until now increased Russians income from exports while reducing or re-routing the the output. It also is pushing China, Iran and Russia into a strategic alliance (aviation included).

I agree with you entirely, including earlier posts. Everyone is fully aware that sanctions only, and ever have, hit innocent people of a country......never the leadership who actually caused them.

If it would be just the targeted country! The EU is on the brink with its fuel prices having multiplied since the within half a year. The aviation industry still suffering the MAX disaster and COVID is also not happy loosing further business opportunities and breaking working relationships because of the sanctions.

Sachmet wrote:

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

(...)

The Russia of today is not the USSR. I recently read an estimate that a quarter of the defense budget in Russia is lost in kickbacks.

There is an amazing set of photos of Russian aircraft and helicopters in a.net posted by Fyodor Borisov. There is a common theme: pretty much all those helicopters and aircraft are 1960s and 1970s designs. Russia has done many fewer projects since 1990. Here is one example of how it works in Russia today: the latest generation of the IL-76 - in itself a 1960's design. Work on the project started in 2010. First flight in 2014. From 2012 to 2022 they delivered 12 units. Anything Russia embarks on in civil aviation will be a huge struggle. Even restarting the production of some workhorses like the Tu-154 will be nearly impossible. Ramping up Tu-214 production 5 times, ah, good luck.

I grew up on Physics and Math books from the USSR. They were amazing, the people that wrote up the problems were absolutely brilliant and ingenious. They are all gone or retired now and I am not aware of a similar new generation.

Sachmet wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

The point is that the idea to make the Russians suffer to weaken and demotivate them is contra productive and historically unfounded. When it comes to aviation it will only motivate them to produce or continue producing in greater numbers their new or already existing civil models like the IL-96, TU-214, MC21 and smaller turboprops.

(...)

The Russia of today is not the USSR. I recently read an estimate that a quarter of the defense budget in Russia is lost in kickbacks.

There is an amazing set of photos of Russian aircraft and helicopters in a.net posted by Fyodor Borisov. There is a common theme: pretty much all those helicopters and aircraft are 1960s and 1970s designs. Russia has done many fewer projects since 1990. Here is one example of how it works in Russia today: the latest generation of the IL-76 - in itself a 1960's design. Work on the project started in 2010. First flight in 2014. From 2012 to 2022 they delivered 12 units. Anything Russia embarks on in civil aviation will be a huge struggle. Even restarting the production of some workhorses like the Tu-154 will be nearly impossible. Ramping up Tu-214 production 5 times, ah, good luck.

I grew up on Physics and Math books from the USSR. They were amazing, the people that wrote up the problems were absolutely brilliant and ingenious. They are all gone or retired now and I am not aware of a similar new generation.

In general I agree but the loss in skills is symmetrically, the west doesn't look that good neither. I do prefer the 737 classic anytime over the newer models or any of the airbusses. Or the "anytime baby" F14 tomcat over the "even pigs can fly giving them enough thrust" F35. That the 70's design is inferior than present almost pilotless models is not given. Progress isn't just counting years or adding new features. In the case of the MAX improved fuel economy (new but wider engine with greater bypass ratio) it came at the cost of safety (and ultimately lives). Newer doesn't equal better.

The accdent rate would say something different.

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4807802/ ... safety.jpg

https://www.airlineratings.com/wp-conte ... 2017-1.jpg

ReverseFlow wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

In general I agree but the loss in skills is symmetrically, the west doesn't look that good neither. I do prefer the 737 classic anytime over the newer models or any of the airbusses. Or the "anytime baby" F14 tomcat over the "even pigs can fly giving them enough thrust" F35. That the 70's design is inferior than present almost pilotless models is not given. Progress isn't just counting years or adding new features. In the case of the MAX improved fuel economy (new but wider engine with greater bypass ratio) it came at the cost of safety (and ultimately lives). Newer doesn't equal better.

The accdent rate would say something different.

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4807802/ ... safety.jpg

https://www.airlineratings.com/wp-conte ... 2017-1.jpg

Those statistic don't really say much. Better would be to compare the same types (like 737c vs MAX vs NG) flying in the same companies at the same years. Anything else can be constructed in many ways and doesn't mean that the older model would be less safe if it had not been replaced with the newer ones. Why personal experience isn't a prove neither I can only state that all the complex electronic isn't cutting it for me at least. Russian aircraft used to be more robust and can take more beatings (bit like the population) but consumes more fuel and provides less comfort. When it comes to fuel: Russia has plenty.
Well I can't see Russian stopping flying or being unable to produce their own types. Sure like any change it will difficult at first but as wrote above they have plenty of motivation to overcome those. If they succeed or not I can't state for sure. I don't own a time-machine so time tells me nothing - history does and it tells quite a story of successes in producing world class aviation technology. The last thirty years made them lazy consumers in the civil sector. Now they got a nice kick and it will help them to focus on making them completely independent from key western components again.

The only thing that I doubt is that this outcome was the intention of the sanctions!

Sachmet wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

I think the cheese episode isn't really the one to look at but WWII. The suffering the Russian people were willing to endure for victory was incomparable with any other nation.

There's an important difference, though. In WWII the USSR was attacked by a regime whose goal was literal racial extermination. Here, Putin instigated a war of choice for... unclear reasons. I can't purport to know the Russian state of mind right now, but if Putin's Ukrainian adventurism blows up in his face, the result isn't Moscow being turned into an ornamental lake or every Russian speaker west of the Urals starving to death - failure conditions which may have affected the level of deprivation the USSR's citizens were willing to face to defeat Germany.

You mean the difference that Russia (SU) invaded Poland, Finland and Stalin was a murderous dictator?

In any case Russian are known to be resilient. Also there is war propaganda on all sides - it means the situation present itself different for the ones living in Russia because they don't watch CNN or read the NYT. If true or not but they see the invasion as a pre-emptive strike against a invasion from the West. To them the situation feels similar to WWII.

mentalities never change, like language. It just needs triggers to make their real characteristics coming out stronger. That counts also for European countries, things can happen again... .

Sachmet wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

Sachmet wrote:

In general I agree but the loss in skills is symmetrically, the west doesn't look that good neither. I do prefer the 737 classic anytime over the newer models or any of the airbusses. Or the "anytime baby" F14 tomcat over the "even pigs can fly giving them enough thrust" F35. That the 70's design is inferior than present almost pilotless models is not given. Progress isn't just counting years or adding new features. In the case of the MAX improved fuel economy (new but wider engine with greater bypass ratio) it came at the cost of safety (and ultimately lives). Newer doesn't equal better.

The accdent rate would say something different.

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4807802/ ... safety.jpg

https://www.airlineratings.com/wp-conte ... 2017-1.jpg

Those statistic don't really say much. Better would be to compare the same types (like 737c vs MAX vs NG) flying in the same companies at the same years. Anything else can be constructed in many ways and doesn't mean that the older model would be less safe if it had not been replaced with the newer ones. Why personal experience isn't a prove neither I can only state that all the complex electronic isn't cutting it for me at least. Russian aircraft used to be more robust and can take more beatings (bit like the population) but consumes more fuel and provides less comfort. When it comes to fuel: Russia has plenty.
Well I can't see Russian stopping flying or being unable to produce their own types. Sure like any change it will difficult at first but as wrote above they have plenty of motivation to overcome those. If they succeed or not I can't state for sure. I don't own a time-machine so time tells me nothing - history does and it tells quite a story of successes in producing world class aviation technology. The last thirty years made them lazy consumers in the civil sector. Now they got a nice kick and it will help them to focus on making them completely independent from key western components again.

The only thing that I doubt is that this outcome was the intention of the sanctions!

I'll skip the accident rate thing as my last reply was deleted.

But regarding the capacity to produce world class aviation technology - it's not only enough to design great aircraft but you've got to build, support and upgrade them, too.

Therefore I don't see the Russian aircraft industry being able to compensate for the loss of western aircraft in the short to mid term.

Was it Il-96 were to be built 2-3 a year due to the sanctions?
Airbus and Boeing combined build 2-3 a DAY.

RJWNL wrote:

I don't think many parties will be interested in such 'working relationships' for a long time to come...

I've said it several times, as equally have others, in the weeks following stabilisation of the situation, you can bet your bottom dollar that companies, including lessors, will be queuing up to do business again. It's a fact of life as seen in every conflict that ever existed. Companies are only to happy to make money no matter what.

Vicenza wrote:

RJWNL wrote:

I don't think many parties will be interested in such 'working relationships' for a long time to come...

I've said it several times, as equally have others, in the weeks following stabilisation of the situation, you can bet your bottom dollar that companies, including lessors, will be queuing up to do business again. It's a fact of life as seen in every conflict that ever existed. Companies are only to happy to make money no matter what.

Without a regime change in Moscow or a renunciation of the current aggressive policies pursued by the Russian Federation, I highly doubt companies will be running back to Russia. This is a proxy war between Russia and the West, initiated by Russia, and one that may last for many years to come.

This is a civil aviation discussion. Please take all discussion that isn't civil aviation related to the non-aviation forum.

ReverseFlow wrote:

But regarding the capacity to produce world class aviation technology - it's not only enough to design great aircraft but you've got to build, support and upgrade them, too.

Therefore I don't see the Russian aircraft industry being able to compensate for the loss of western aircraft in the short to mid term.

Was it Il-96 were to be built 2-3 a year due to the sanctions?
Airbus and Boeing combined build 2-3 a DAY.

No - in contrary they build so few because the Russian aviation industry could not compete with the markets giants. Now as Russia is excluded from buying Boeing and Airbus they suddenly got back the whole Russian inland market. I guess they did send a big "thank you" west.

Sachmet wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

But regarding the capacity to produce world class aviation technology - it's not only enough to design great aircraft but you've got to build, support and upgrade them, too.

Therefore I don't see the Russian aircraft industry being able to compensate for the loss of western aircraft in the short to mid term.

Was it Il-96 were to be built 2-3 a year due to the sanctions?
Airbus and Boeing combined build 2-3 a DAY.

No - in contrary they build so few because the Russian aviation industry could not compete with the markets giants. Now as Russia is excluded from buying Boeing and Airbus they suddenly got back the whole Russian inland market. I guess they did send a big "thank you" west.

Good luck with the “whole Russian inland market”

The problem with the Russian aircraft competing with the west had nothing to do with pricing or costs. The problems they had with competing with the west was due to quality and corruption.

I dealt with good Russians for decades in cutting edge technologies with lots of good engineers and scientists. Most of them moved to the west when they could. The corruption and hence the quality of the end products was atrocious. Same problems with Chinese and Indian manufacturers. Inconsistent quality products, falsified tests….I’ve seen tanks with their armor falling off because the stainless steel bolts holding the armor on were rusted through because they were not really stainless steel.

In Russia, the corruption is even more institutionalized than India or China, because the “tea monies” filter right up to the top.

Turkey, India, Hungary, and China are not the friends of Russia you think…simply triangulating in the short term.

Russia’s aviation sector will have no chance even with a captive local market until there is the real rule of law and the mafia that runs the country are disposed of.

Sachmet wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

But regarding the capacity to produce world class aviation technology - it's not only enough to design great aircraft but you've got to build, support and upgrade them, too.

Therefore I don't see the Russian aircraft industry being able to compensate for the loss of western aircraft in the short to mid term.

Was it Il-96 were to be built 2-3 a year due to the sanctions?
Airbus and Boeing combined build 2-3 a DAY.

No - in contrary they build so few because the Russian aviation industry could not compete with the markets giants. Now as Russia is excluded from buying Boeing and Airbus they suddenly got back the whole Russian inland market. I guess they did send a big "thank you" west.

So, in other words. by sending the West that imaginary thank you note, you implicitly agree that they are, er, to put it politely, noncompetitive clunkers that can only be manufactured when Russian airlines have no other options?

Sachmet wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

But regarding the capacity to produce world class aviation technology - it's not only enough to design great aircraft but you've got to build, support and upgrade them, too.

Therefore I don't see the Russian aircraft industry being able to compensate for the loss of western aircraft in the short to mid term.

Was it Il-96 were to be built 2-3 a year due to the sanctions?
Airbus and Boeing combined build 2-3 a DAY.

No - in contrary they build so few because the Russian aviation industry could not compete with the markets giants. Now as Russia is excluded from buying Boeing and Airbus they suddenly got back the whole Russian inland market. I guess they did send a big "thank you" west.

So according to this

https://m.economictimes.com/news/defenc ... 597799.cms

They want to ramp up the rate to 120 a year 'as soon as possible'.
At a guess these will mostly be MC21 and SSJ.
And the long range flying from Moscow to Vladivostok will be done by the 2-3 built a year IL-96?

So as the future is bright for them, will they be exported?

From an industrial standpoint I see the program the easiest to scale up should be the Il-76. All russian, just updated and big capacity and flexibility. But not really efficient and comfortable for passenger flights. Superjets will not cut it, too small, and the MS-21 is lost without all the western partners and suppliers. Maybe they should restart the Tu-154, possibly with newer engines? That would be a quick and dirty way to get all the capacity needed.

Noshow wrote:

From an industrial standpoint I see the program the easiest to scale up should be the Il-76. All russian, just updated and big capacity and flexibility. But not really efficient and comfortable for passenger flights. Superjets will not cut it, too small, and the MS-21 is lost without all the western partners and suppliers. Maybe they should restart the Tu-154, possibly with newer engines? That would be a quick and dirty way to get all the capacity needed.

Tu-154 would probably be a no-go, unless there is an unfinished frame sitting at the assembly plant (and a few of those actually were slowly, and then quickly, built up and flown off, during early 2000's) waiting for its hour.
Most of the spare parts are in very limited production. Databases show that operational fleet is basically what flies with China Air force, one plane in Kazakhstan air force, and Gromov Insitute -- and this is a test institution, they probably have enough expertise and spare parts to rebuild this Tu-154 into another plane type, and then back
Or you don't mean manufacturing planes, but rather scavenging through junkyards, and rolling off preserved frames off pedestals, and putting them back to work?

Tu-204 series (including 214) would be a tad more realistic than Tu-154
there's apparently a dozen or so incomplete hulls sitting at assembly plants. Plus all the mothballed planes, that could not make money to their owners. But at least the type(s) is/are flying, and there must be some spare parts support.

Talking about new builds only. Until a short time ago there was at least a low rate mothballed military Tu-154 line that might be restartable. Not sure about the Tu-214, is it ready for "mass" production? Their rates are super low anyway. Like a dozen per year. So they will need a huge kick start for long lead items first, engines, gears and such while they prepare the final assembly sites and suppliers. It will neither be easy nor cheap and they will not end up with modern fleets.

Noshow wrote:

Talking about new builds only. Until a short time ago there was at least a low rate mothballed military Tu-154 line that might be restartable. Not sure about the Tu-214, is it ready for "mass" production? Their rates are super low anyway. Like a dozen per year. So they will need a huge kick start for long lead items first, engines, gears and such while they prepare the final assembly sites and suppliers. It will neither be easy nor cheap and they will not end up with modern fleets.

There'll be a lot of design politics to unwind, anywhere, to get Tu-154 supply chain operational.
For most of 1990's Tupolev, as a Design Bureau, was earning its living (because assembly plants surely weren't paying it for just being around) with demanding money for service bulletins, validity extensions and -- very importantly -- paperwork for airworthiness of components. Basically, plenty of items were originally built of materials, that were, to say mildly, an overkill.

(Personal story. I was selling chemicals and plastics for a living at the time, wholesale, starting with truckloads. A fella shows up, and asks me to sell a fairly special polymer. Rare stuff, I have it on the "supply possible list", but some errands need to be run. He is moaning about price, asks for 50% discount, and then throws a trump card -- "I'm ready to buy as much as 30 kg!!" And if the product is good, he's ready to double or thereabout.
Long story short -- in an application -- a tiny small interior part with no mechanical requirements of note, where a fairly cheap plastic could do -- provided it was loaded with flame retardants -- Tupolev specified this expensive fancy stuff. It was available, because Soviet Army liked it, and it was made in quantity. But when true cost became known, Soviet Army cancelled all orders, production closed.
These guys needed spare parts. Nobody would sell them for a reasonable price. They figured a way to reactivate a mothballed production under toll manufacture, and 30 kg of plastic would make their life good for a good few years. And double that probably would solve their problems until Tu-154 were parked for good.
Small production run with an "retail" polymer purchase price, that would include airfreight from half across the world, was still cheaper, than a "fee" Tupolev was asking to look into changing polymer specification.)

Plus, many of these are not really longer available, at least at economic prices. Worse, most of people who actually knew, why is what in that plane, are no longer there.
Think of trying to build a Hawker-Siddeley Trident again, same story. BAE might even have some drawings and tooling, would that help?

So you would try to restart building a plane with 1970's technology AND inability to really take advantage of most new developments.
4-person cockpit would look very unique these days, I give you that

My thought came from the idea to source everything inland and use an existing working design. I agree to the out of date technology problem. But if they start to develop some domestic airliner from scratch now, say an "MS-22", when could this be ready? Without western parts and supplies.
I just think about solving their practical need for seats and airframes in the fastest and easiest way -not the cheapest- from their perspective.

Noshow wrote:

My thought came from the idea to source everything inland and use an existing working design. I agree to the out of date technology problem. But if they start to develop some domestic airliner from scratch now, say an "MS-22", when could this be ready? Without western parts and supplies.
I just think about solving their practical need for seats and airframes in the fastest and easiest way -not the cheapest- from their perspective.

Cannibalizing Airbuses and Boeings will be how they do it.
MC-21 is full of carbon fibre of the types that russia isn't able to make. Who is supplying them now, after more decent manufacturers turned away, when this war began in 2014? It's Solvay, right? If Solvay continues to supply carbon fibre, and similarly inclined sanction-busters continue to ship dual-use materials into russia, there's no need to return to technologies of yesteryear.

In any case, russia wasn't planning for a "Cold War 2". In their twisted mind, there is Kremlin and White House. Maybe also some puppet-masters. But nothing they couldn't handle. Everyone would come back begging for their energy, and it would be business as usual, and russia could continue planning their glorious expansion. From Vladivostok to Lisbon and Shannon, "russki mir/russian world" will be everywhere.
So the idea "disconnect for a long-term" wasn't planned.

Basically, that's the reason to hurt every ruskie at the maximum pain levels at maximum number of points. So screaming and wailing and gnashing of teeth is ubiquitous, and directly connected to Kremlin's actions. Current half-measures aren't working.

The more they use the inherited fleet the faster it breaks down or needs substantial work. This is why I try to find a way after this moment. They will need A LOT of aircraft. Better start to build up the system now than later. It will take many years anyway when sanctions start to bite even more. Now they have money saved and energy income still flowing but this will dry out. I see purely domestic products as the only solution. Maybe they can relabel some military aircraft factory that is more up to date. Like the one building their Tu-160neo.

Looking at the difficulties Boeing and Airbus have faced over the last 25 years, I find it difficult to imagine Russia ramping up commercial aircraft in the amounts needed in anything less than ten years. The Ukraine war will likely be settled long before that time. The settlement likely will include the EU, US, and the rest of the 'free' world reestablishing some sort of resumption of trade. It all will be ugly.

Phosphorus wrote:

Cannibalizing Airbuses and Boeings will be how they do it.
MC-21 is full of carbon fibre of the types that russia isn't able to make. Who is supplying them now, after more decent manufacturers turned away, when this war began in 2014? It's Solvay, right? If Solvay continues to supply carbon fibre, and similarly inclined sanction-busters continue to ship dual-use materials into russia, there's no need to return to technologies of yesteryear.
(...)

Your examples are proof that it will be very difficult for Russia to replace the civilian fleet with local production in the short and medium term. Like I wrote before, Russia is NOT the USSR. Russia is slower, more corrupt and relative to the times, the skills gap with the West widened.

This photo is from 20-Aug but thought it was pretty powerful. Taken in Sochi.



Video as well
https://twitter.com/i/status/1560880915194281984

TWA302 wrote:

This photo is from 20-Aug but thought it was pretty powerful. Taken in Sochi.



Video as well
https://twitter.com/i/status/1560880915194281984

Well, pretty visuals, but what’s going on? Could be an airport truck on fire.

Noshow wrote:

Talking about new builds only. Until a short time ago there was at least a low rate mothballed military Tu-154 line that might be restartable. Not sure about the Tu-214, is it ready for "mass" production? Their rates are super low anyway. Like a dozen per year. So they will need a huge kick start for long lead items first, engines, gears and such while they prepare the final assembly sites and suppliers. It will neither be easy nor cheap and they will not end up with modern fleets.

Tu-204/214 - 89 built in 32 years. Most produced in one year (2008): ten and then six in 2009. Other than that, literally two or three a year.

Tu-154 - obviously built in much larger numbers thanks mainly to being produced during the Soviet era. 1,026 built over a 45 year production run (to last delivery).

All numbers from Wikipedia.